DCT
2:24-cv-00058
Facet Technology Corp v. Mobileye Global Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Facet Technology Corp. (Minnesota)
- Defendant: Mobileye Global, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00058, E.D. Tex., 01/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas and has committed acts of infringement in the district. Allegations include Defendant’s extensive business with General Motors (a party to a related suit in the district), a relationship with a telematics company in Longview, TX, and collaborations with Volkswagen and Texas A&M University within Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s EyeQ3 and EyeQ4 Systems-on-Chip, which are components in automotive Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, infringe patents related to the automated assessment of reflective objects along a roadway.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of automotive safety systems, specifically using vehicle-mounted sensors and processors to identify and analyze reflective road markers like lane markings and signs for functions such as lane departure warnings.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references a related lawsuit against General Motors (GM) in the same district. It alleges that Defendant had notice of the patents-in-suit as early as 2016 through its collaboration with GM, which was in licensing discussions with Plaintiff at that time. Plaintiff also alleges sending a formal notice letter regarding one of the patents to GM in 2020, from which notice to Defendant is inferred. The patents-in-suit have recently been subject to a disclaimer by the assignee for certain claims, including the asserted method claim 12 of the '255' Patent and system claims 17-23 of the '328' Patent; however, asserted system claim 9 of the '328 Patent is not part of the disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-08-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '255 and '328 Patents |
| 2014-10-13 | '255 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2016-01-01 | Approximate date Mobileye began engaging with GM (Alleged) |
| 2016-05-10 | '255 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-05-06 | '328 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2016-11-28 | Plaintiff discussed licensing the Patents-in-Suit with GM (Alleged) |
| 2017-06-06 | '328 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-02-20 | Plaintiff sent notice letter to GM regarding '328 Patent (Alleged) |
| 2022-01-01 | Plaintiff sent another notice letter to GM (Alleged) |
| 2024-01-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,335,255 - System and Assessment of Reflective Objects Along a Roadway, issued May 10, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the significant time, expense, and potential for inaccuracy involved in manually inspecting the vast number of road signs to assess their retroreflectivity and material type ('255 Patent, col. 1:43-2:10). Existing semi-automated systems required an operator to manually target individual signs, limiting throughput and efficiency (Compl. ¶26; '255 Patent, col. 3:4-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a mobile, automated method for assessing reflective surfaces without needing to target them individually ('255 Patent, col. 3:11-20). A system mounted on a vehicle illuminates a general area of the roadside, a sensor captures the reflected light intensity, and a processor analyzes the intensity data to assess a reflective characteristic of a "road marker" within the illuminated area ('255 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to automate the large-scale inventory and quality assessment of road infrastructure, a critical task for highway maintenance and safety compliance, by removing the manual "point-and-shoot" step required by prior art systems (Compl. ¶25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 12 (Compl. ¶52).
- Claim 12 Elements:
- An automated method of assessing reflective surfaces disposed along a highway comprising:
- (a) activating a light source as the light source is traversed along a roadway to illuminate an area that includes at least one reflective surface on a road marker, the road marker having a reflective characteristic;
- (b) determining a plurality of light intensity values with at least one intensity sensor directed to cover a field of view which includes at least a portion of the area illuminated by the light source; and
- (c) using a computer processing system configured to: (i) identify a portion of at least one light intensity value... associated with one of the at least one reflective surface of the road marker; and (ii) analyze the portion of the at least one light intensity value... to determine an assessment of the reflective characteristic of the road marker.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,671,328 - System and Assessment of Reflective Objects Along a Roadway, issued June 6, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '328 Patent addresses the same fundamental problem as its parent '255 Patent: the inefficiency and high cost associated with manually or semi-automatically assessing millions of reflective road signs for maintenance and inventory purposes ('328 Patent, col. 2:12-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system comprising an "active light sensor" (a combined light source and sensor) that moves along a roadway ('328 Patent, col. 7:9-17). A connected computer processor is configured to detect objects of interest, determine if they contain a reflective surface of a road marker, and analyze the reflected light intensity to determine "an assessment of a discrete location of the road marker" ('328 Patent, col. 8:1-8).
- Technical Importance: This system provides a hardware configuration for automating the data collection process, focusing on determining not just the reflective quality but also the specific location of roadway markers from a moving vehicle (Compl. ¶37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 9 (Compl. ¶75).
- Claim 9 Elements:
- An automated system for assessing reflective surfaces disposed along a roadway comprising:
- (a) an active light sensor that is traversed along a roadway that includes at least one reflective surface on a road marker... the active light sensor including: (i) a light source... and (ii) a light sensor that measures a plurality of light intensity values...; and
- (b) a computer processing system operably connected to the active light sensor and configured to detect objects of interest... and for each object of interest: (i) determine whether the object of interest includes at least one light intensity value associated with a reflective surface of a road marker...; and (ii) analyze the at least one light intensity value to determine an assessment of a discrete location of the road marker...
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s EyeQ3 and EyeQ4 Systems-on-Chip (SOCs) (Compl. ¶40).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these SOCs are core components of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), such as the Lane Keep Assist (LKA) and Lane Departure Warning (LDW) technologies implemented in vehicles from General Motors and other manufacturers (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 43, 46).
- The accused functionality involves using a forward-looking camera as a sensor and the vehicle's headlights as a light source to detect and analyze reflective road markers, such as lane markings, at night (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55, 78-80). The SOCs, as part of the vehicle's Electronic Control Units (ECUs), allegedly perform the computer processing steps of identifying the markers from reflected light and determining their location to enable the LKA and LDW features (Compl. ¶¶ 56-58, 80-82).
- Plaintiff alleges these automated safety technologies are essential for competitiveness in the modern vehicle marketplace (Compl. ¶47).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'255 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) activating a light source as the light source is traversed along a roadway to illuminate an area that includes at least one reflective surface on a road marker... | The accused systems utilize vehicle headlights as a light source to illuminate reflective road markers while the vehicle is in motion. | ¶54 | col. 4:1-4 |
| (b) determining a plurality of light intensity values with at least one intensity sensor directed to cover a field of view which includes at least a portion of the area illuminated by the light source... | A forward-looking camera module acts as the intensity sensor, capturing light intensity values from the area illuminated by the headlights. | ¶55 | col. 4:4-7 |
| (c) using a computer processing system configured to: (i) identify a portion of at least one light intensity value... associated with one of the at least one reflective surface of the road marker... | The Mobileye SOCs, within vehicle ECUs, are computer processing systems that detect road markers at night based on the intensity of the reflected light. | ¶57 | col. 4:8-12 |
| (ii) analyze the portion of the at least one light intensity value... to determine an assessment of the reflective characteristic of the road marker. | The SOCs analyze the light intensity values to determine an assessment of the road marker's reflective characteristic. | ¶58 | col. 4:12-15 |
'328 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) an active light sensor that is traversed along a roadway that includes at least one reflective surface on a road marker... the active light sensor including: (i) a light source... and (ii) a light sensor... | The combination of a forward-looking camera (light sensor) and vehicle headlights (light source) allegedly constitutes the "active light sensor" that is traversed along the roadway. | ¶¶77-79 | col. 7:9-17 |
| (b) a computer processing system operably connected to the active light sensor and configured to detect objects of interest within the field of view... | The Mobileye SOCs, as part of GM's LKA and LDW systems, are the computer processing systems that detect objects of interest, such as lane markers. | ¶80 | col. 8:1-3 |
| for each object of interest: (i) determine whether the object of interest includes at least one light intensity value associated with a reflective surface of a road marker in the field of view... | For each detected object, the SOCs determine if it is a lane marking by identifying its associated reflected light intensity value. | ¶81 | col. 8:4-6 |
| (ii) analyze the at least one light intensity value to determine an assessment of a discrete location of the road marker within the field of view. | The SOCs analyze the light intensity to determine the location of the lane marking. | ¶82 | col. 8:6-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A principal dispute may arise over the definition of "road marker." The patent specifications for both patents focus heavily on reflective signs as the primary embodiment ('255 Patent, Fig. 1; '328 Patent, Fig. 1), while the complaint's infringement theory centers on the detection of painted lane markings (Compl. ¶¶ 78, 81). The case may turn on whether "road marker" can be construed to encompass lane markings.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question for the '255 patent is what evidence shows the accused systems perform an "assessment of the reflective characteristic" of the marker, as claimed. The complaint's allegations for the '328 patent focus on determining an "assessment of a discrete location," (Compl. ¶82) which aligns more directly with the function of a Lane Departure Warning system. It is an open question whether simply detecting a lane marker's location for guidance constitutes an assessment of its "reflective characteristic" (e.g., its brightness or material quality) as required by the '255 patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "road marker" (appears in asserted claims of both patents)
- Context and Importance: This term's scope is central to the dispute. The patents' examples and problem statements largely concern discrete, vertical road signs. Plaintiff's infringement allegations, however, rely on the accused systems detecting painted lane markings. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether "road marker" is construed broadly enough to cover lane markings.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of "road marker" is general. Furthermore, the specification of the related '328 patent explicitly states that the database of road markers can include "pavement markings" ('328 Patent, col. 19:35-37), which may provide definitional support for a broad reading across the patent family.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background sections of both patents frame the problem as inventorying and assessing millions of road signs ('255 Patent, col. 1:43-50; '328 Patent, col. 2:12-18). The primary embodiments and figures depict systems analyzing objects like stop signs ('255 Patent, Fig. 1). A defendant may argue this context limits the term "road marker" to sign-like objects rather than painted lines.
The Term: "assessment of the reflective characteristic" ('255 Patent, Claim 12)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the required output of the claimed method. The complaint alleges the accused LKA/LDW systems perform this step (Compl. ¶58), but their primary function is typically positional tracking, not quality analysis. The dispute will be whether detecting a marker's presence and location for lane-keeping purposes meets the claim requirement of assessing a "characteristic" like retroreflectivity or sheeting type, which is a focus of the patent's specification ('255 Patent, col. 5:28-6:51).
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue that any analysis of reflected light—even a binary determination of presence/absence for tracking—is an "assessment" of a "reflective characteristic" (i.e., the characteristic of being reflective enough to be detected).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed descriptions of determining specific retroreflectivity values (Rₐ) and classifying sheeting materials (Types I, III, VII) as the goal of the assessment ('255 Patent, col. 5:50-6:3). A defendant may argue that this detailed disclosure limits the scope of "assessment of the reflective characteristic" to a quantitative or qualitative analysis of the reflection's quality, not merely its detection for positional guidance.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by its customers, such as GM and other vehicle manufacturers, and the end-users of the vehicles (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 71, 92). The alleged inducement is based on Defendant encouraging, directing, and aiding the use of the accused SOCs in a manner that infringes the patents, consistent with its promotions and instructions (Compl. ¶¶ 70, 96).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 61, 87). Plaintiff alleges this knowledge arose as early as 2016 from Defendant’s collaboration with GM, at a time when Plaintiff and GM were discussing licensing the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 67). A second basis for knowledge is alleged from a 2020 notice letter sent from Plaintiff to GM, with the complaint inferring that GM would have informed its technology partner, Mobileye (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 93).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "road marker", which is described in the patents' specifications primarily in the context of traffic signs, be construed to cover the painted lane markings detected by the accused LKA and LDW systems? The outcome of this claim construction will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused system's process of detecting a lane marker's location for lane-keeping guidance constitute an "assessment of the reflective characteristic" as required by the '255 patent? Or is its function limited to the "assessment of a discrete location" as recited in the '328 patent, raising the possibility of a mismatch between the accused conduct and the '255 patent's claims?
- A central factual dispute concerning damages will be one of notice and willfulness: Did Defendant have pre-suit knowledge of the patents? The complaint's theory relies on inferring notice to Mobileye through communications between Plaintiff and GM, a separate corporate entity. The strength of the evidence supporting this inference will be a primary focus for determining willfulness.